MOSCOW, June 20. /TASS/. The decision of the European Court on Human Rights regarding the law on homosexuality promotion ban may be considered as an attempt to meddle in Russia’s internal affairs, Chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee for Constitutional Legislation ad State Construction, Andrey Klishas, told reporters.
"The current legislation corresponds to the public morality that developed in the Russian society. As long as the legislative solution to the public appeal is within the authority of the national legislator, the European institutional bodies should have refrained from interference with the country’s internal affairs," the senator told reporters.
Klishas also believes that the Russian Justice Ministry must file an application to the Constitutional Court on the possibility of implementation of the ECHR decision. The MP noted that the implementation of the European court’s decision may lead to violation of Article 29 of the Russian Constitution, that prohibits propaganda that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, and contradicts Article 17 of the Constitution, under which the execution of the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen must not violate the rights and freedoms of other individuals.
In his turn, First Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Legislation and State Construction, Yelena Mizulina, told reporters that she is not surprised with the ECHR decision, "considering Europe’s attitude to this issue in particular and the wish to annoy Russia in any way."
The senator stressed that there is nothing discriminatory in the law that bans homosexual propaganda in Russia. "On the contrary, it protects children from the information that they are not ready for, and not ready to perceive it independently. The Justice Ministry has already declared its intention to appeal against the ECHR decision. I think this position is correct," the MP concluded.
As previously reported, the ECHR considered Russia’s decision to ban the promotion of homosexuality among minors to be a violation of Article 10 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found in particular that, "although the laws in question are aimed primarily at protecting minors, the limits of those laws had not been clearly defined and their application had been arbitrary.".